London slaughter: Al-Qaeda or Al-Shabab, what difference does it make?

Every time we have a terror incident somewhere in the world, the media and the politicians want to know whether the event or the group involved was affiliated with Al-Qaeda.  What difference does it make?

In fact, in March of 2009 I went to hear testimony before the US Senate Homeland Security Committee and I was amazed to hear Senators Lieberman and Collins almost audibly give a sigh of relief to hear that the Somali youths (US citizens!) who had left the US for Jihad training in East Africa were only going to join Al-Shabab (sometimes spelled Al-Shabaab) which had, at that point in time, not been formally connected to Al-Qaeda.

Michael Adebolajo with Anjem Choudary at London pro-Islam demonstration in 2007

As a matter of fact, Obama does it all the time.  He says this group or that incident was not connected to Al-Qaeda, implying that it isn’t too bad unless A-Q is behind it.

My point is that it’s the Islamic ideology driving these Jihad attacks, and it makes no difference which group is involved (or no group for that matter!).

I see the New York Times is more interested in the ritualistic slaughter of a British soldier now that a connection has been made to Al-Qaeda.

LONDON — Britain’s security agencies appeared headed for a period of deeply uncomfortable scrutiny after the government said Sunday that it had been aware for more than two years that one of the two men suspected of hacking an off-duty British soldier to death on a London street had ties to Al Qaeda.

A Foreign Office spokesman confirmed that the ministry had provided “consular assistance” in Kenya in 2010 to the man, Michael Adebolajo, 28, a British citizen of Nigerian descent. He had been arrested by the Kenyan police on suspicion of planning to join Al Shabab, an extremist group in Somalia that Britain has classified as a terrorist organization.

Think about this next part.  When we, or the Brits, have either raised or “welcomed” and made them citizens these Jihadists are ours.  Kenya had every right to deport the future alleged killer, Adebolajo, back to his homeland—the UK!

But, to the US’s credit and to the shame of the UK, we did prosecute our “youths” (the ones we caught) who went back to Africa to join the Jihad.  In fact many Somalis (our citizens) were sentenced just recently here to jail time for doing what Adebolajo did.

Unfortunately, we did, however, go so far as to bring home a US citizen/Somali suicide bomber’s body to the US for a “decent” burial, here in 2008.

The Brits let Adebolajo return to his freedom in the UK.

In a statement on Sunday, the Foreign Office spokesman sought to tamp down the controversy, saying that the office’s role in the events in Kenya in November 2010 was limited to consular assistance to Mr. Adebolajo, “as normal for British nationals.” It did not address the Kenyan government’s statements that Mr. Adebolajo, using a false name, had been arrested near the Somali border with five Kenyan nationals while carrying Shabab literature.

Then there is the question of whether the MI5 was so stupid as to think they could recruit Adebolajo (was that in exchange for his freedom?).

The statement also did not address a claim made on BBC television on Friday night that Mr. Adebolajo spoke of rebuffing an attempt by MI5, the British domestic security agency, to recruit him. The claim was made by Ibrahim Hassan, a man who says he has links to Islamic extremist groups. Mr. Hassan said Mr. Adebolajo had told him that the recruitment attempt was made after he was deported from Kenya. British security officials quoted in the Sunday newspapers said that efforts to recruit Islamic extremists in such circumstances were common.


Mr. Hassan’s claims and his arrest added to a growing sense that inquiries into Mr. Rigby’s death are likely to delve into the murky world of the security agencies and their dealings with Islamic extremists.


Among the issues that the panel’s leading members have said they want to explore is whether MI5’s desire to penetrate groups with suspected terrorist ties had led to decisions not to prosecute people like Mr. Adebolajo under laws that bar Britons from engaging with terrorist organizations overseas. Security officials have said that MI5 viewed Mr. Adebolajo as posing a “low risk” of potential terrorism and did not think he needed close monitoring.

Read it all.

About the photo:  If you don’t know Choudary, learn more about him here.